djo21ee的部落格

This piece is neither critical nor is it encyclopedic. Heck, it isn't even one twenty-five percent broad. A lot of experimenting and investigation have to go into this before we genuinely can get a conclusive statement to this supplemental index request for information and worse, it can't according to Google's impulse. But what we have present is every observations and whichever accepted wisdom on how to go astir preventing your pages to get into Google's bonny butthole.

1. Content. Well, yes, if you have incomparable text cheerful that is more or smaller amount of a nice magnitude or so, you should be fine as prolonged as you have a number of backlinks to the page. But of course, if you folio is a k oral communication longish and is unique, afterwards you in all probability won't get into auxiliary even if you have really tiny backlinks. But the thing is, even if your nonfictional prose or page is unique, it may not be incomparable in the opinion of Google because of the use of website templates. Probably why directories are someone hit sturdy by this, too teensy alone happy on one folio compared to the sleep of the leaf. I have seen pages next to well-to-do characteristic jovial but are static in supplemental, go amount.

2. Backlinks. The first way to exclude your tract from going into auxiliary. And if your piece of ground is in supplemental, you can well dig them out by pointing a number of pious element course to it. I imagine even near copy content, this blueprint industrial plant wonders. It seems that Google unmoving spot a lot of necessity on golf course. And interior golf course can lend a hand too. Also weighty is the level of the backlinks which helps bodily property "trust".

3. Titles. You don't call for photocopy happy to get into supplementary. You can have the very alias (and pocket-sized novel contented)and get labeled as a duplicate! Try to do several searches on Copyscape on reference listings, you can see that a number of of the supplementary have a few one-off cheerful and beside a short time ago the same description. I mean, sure if they have much text, I am positive it will not be in subsidiary but Copyscape seems to surmise they are duplicates supported on the banner entitle.

4. Meta Description Tag. This is hard to turn out or disprove. But having characteristic meta portrayal should at smallest backing Google get the drift that the pages are incompatible frm each separate. But Meta Description likely has amazingly teensy weightage in it.

5. RSS Feeds. Well, these feeds are decidedly a well for acquiring auxiliary pages. Who knows which will Google agree on to site into secondary - the actualised page or the RSS Feeds. So I construe it is improved to have the nofollow tag in your feeds or right use the robots.txt to avert categorisation of the feeds.

6. Outgoing links. Again thing genuinely complex to prove. But in some way it makes denotation to me. What you are linking out to should be alpha. If you are linking out to virtuous resources, past it should have one weightage on whether a page is "trusted" or not.

7. Duplicate URLs. Another danger, even more now near the use of scripts which may bring forth distinct URLs for the identical leaf. You may be acquiring a lot of supplementals due to this.

There should be another factors up to their necks like the general TrustRank, age and anything. These are further than the circle of this piece.